Judgment :- The point that arises for decision in this case is, whether the President of a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, can be transferred by the Government. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The petitioner is the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. He has been transferred by Ext.P2 order of the Government dated 30-09-2004, to Malappuram. He filed Ext.P4 representation dated 13.11.2004, against the said order. This Court, by Ext.P5 Judgment, directed the Government to consider the said representation. The Government considered and rejected the representation by Ext.P6 order dated 01.12.2005. This Writ Petition was filed, challenging Exts.P2 and P6. Though, several grounds are taken in the Writ Petition, the main ground urged by the petitioner is that the transfer has been ordered without following the procedure provided under Sec.10(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said provision reads as follows: “Every appointment under sub-section (1) shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of a selection committee, consisting of the following, namely:- (i) The President of the State Commission – Chairman (ii) Secretary, Law Department of the State – Member, (iii) Secretary in charge of the department – Member. Provided that where the President of the State Commission is, by reason of absence of otherwise, unable to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee, the State Government may refer the matter to the Chief justice of the High Court nominating a sitting Judge of that High Court to act as Chairman� The petitioner submits, though, the said provisions covers appointment for the first time, to the post of President of the Consumer District Forum, the same will apply to appointment by transfer also. This submission is supported by the decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Anand Prakash Solanki [(2003) 7 SCC 403], wherein it is held as follows: “It is true that there is no cadre as such of the Presidents and the members of the District For a contemplated by the Act and this is the principal consideration which has prevailed with the High Court for holding that the President and members of District Fora are not liable to be transferred inasmuch as there is no single cadre of such persons in the State. We cannot subscribe to that view. We cannot subscribe to that view. The existence of one cadre is not essential and is not the sine quo non to make available the power of transfer. As District Fora, more than one, are constituted within the State, there is nothing wrong in the President or members of one District Forum, being appointed by transfer to another District Forum, subject to the requirement of sub-section (1-A) of Section 10 being satisfied. Such appointment by transfer shall be made by the State Government but only on the recommendation of the Committee, consisting of the President of the State Commission and two Secretaries i.e., the Committee composed as per sub-section (1-A) of Section 10. Such appointment by transfer cannot be a frequent or routine feature. The power is thee, but is meant to be exercised sparingly and only in public interest or in such exigencies of administration as would satisfy the purpose of constituting the District Forum. The Broader concept of ‘transfer’ is a change of the place of employment within an organization. Transfer is an incidence of public service and the power to transfer is available to be exercised by the employer unless an express bar or restraint on the exercise of such power can be spelt out. The power, like all other administrative powers, has to be exercised bona fide� In view of the above authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, the petitioner prays for quashing Exts.P2 and P6. 3. The respondent shave not filed any counter affidavit in this Writ Petition. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. Going by Ext.P2, it would appear that the transfer was not ordered on the recommendation of the committee, constituted under Sec.10(1A) of the Act. This is a grave irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter. In several of the cases pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the Government or its instrumentalities are parties. So, the Government cannot be conceded power to transfer the President of the Forum, according to its whims and fancies. If such a power is conceded to the Government, the President of the Forum will be compelled to look back over his shoulders occasionally, whether the Government are standing behind him with the dagger of transfer. So, the Government cannot be conceded power to transfer the President of the Forum, according to its whims and fancies. If such a power is conceded to the Government, the President of the Forum will be compelled to look back over his shoulders occasionally, whether the Government are standing behind him with the dagger of transfer. So, for getting a convenient posting and for not disturbing him from a convenient place, the President of the District Forum will have to keep the Government in good humour. Such an Officer, while discharging the judicial functions, can never be independent. The pledge to do justice without fear or favour or affection or ill-will, will be difficult to keep. To be independent, he must be absolutely free from all types of influences. Independence of judiciary is one of the basics features of our Constitution, which cannot be tinkered with, even by the Parliament, in exercise of its amending power. So, the irregularity committed by the Government, in transferring the petitioner without following the procedure under Section 10(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, makes the impugned orders vitiated. They are void ab initio. In the result, Exts.P2 and P6 are quashed. Liberty given to the Government to reconsider the question of transfer of the petitioner, in consultation with the committee, constituted under Section 10(1A) of the Act. The Writ Petition is allowed as above.